One of the good things about being the largest software company on the planet is that you have a seriously big checkbook. Given its generous cash position, Microsoft has reportedly spent $1 billion securing exclusive games for the launch of the Xbox One game console.

It's good to hear that Microsoft is spending significant money to secure impressive games for its coming game console after some came away from the unveil of the device with an impression that it was more focused on streaming video and entertainment than gaming.

The $1 billion Microsoft plans to invest in exclusive games will get Xbox One users 15 exclusive titles in the first year the console is available including a few completely new franchises. Microsoft has also spent significant money on beefing up its staff including hiring former Sony exec Phil Harrison to manage internal products and developer relations in Europe.

Rare Ltd is also reportedly working to bring one of its iconic franchises back to gamers in something that Microsoft executives are billing as a "historic" revival. Microsoft is also securing game from Black Task Studios that is said to be an action title designed to compete with Halo and Gears of War.

Another interesting title that has been talked about briefly is called Quantum Break; the trailer for that game turned up a while back and can be viewed here.

Yeah, I myself am sick and tired of the backwards compatibility argument. Sure it was a good selling point, but that's all it ever seemed to be, something to put on the box, a gimmick in the end. I never knew anyone that bought a new console, to play older games. This is one thing that needs to stop. I don't like the idea of more expensive hardware, just to satisfy those few that insist on their consoles playing every xbox 360 and xbox 1 game on it. Even if it wasn't hardware, it'd be emulation software, that too takes work/resources/money which = more expensive console for the rest of us. Why the hell should we have to help cover that if we don't want it? I wouldn't be opposed to a more expensive console for those that do, but surely you realize that would be against the purpose of a console, and also it'd be a bad way to manage resources. You are slowing things down if MS isn't fully focused on pushing the new stuff, rather than having them pursue something that is only a nice selling point to put on the box....

Why should I spend over $1,000 dollars for a console that I can only play 5 games at its release? Are you telling me that the "Wow" factor will be so incredible that it's a "MUST HAVE" item versus the current 360? Why not a 4k TV? New Mac Laptop? 17" Dell Laptop? Carnival Cruse for that $1,000 dollars?

Should I just keep the $900 and just buy ten $10 dollar games and wait for the Sony vs MS price war?

The whole backwards compatibility argument is weak from the beginning anyway. Only a handful of consoles ever had this kind of support, and those that did were often the same hardware architecture (GC->Wii->Wii-u, the last of which dropped GC support). PS2 played PS1 games and PS3 BREIFLY played PS2 games but support was dropped shortly after.

Nobody expected the XBO to be backwards compatible, and yet it is thrown around like some kind of massive disadvantage. News flash, PS4 won't play PS3 games either!

If you want to play 360 games, buy a 360 or continue using the one you have. Even with backwards compatibility support, I fail to see how getting an xbox one would let you play more than 5 games if you already have a 360 and library of 360 games. 360 games don't somehow become more special when playing on the xbox one.

So you're saying it's a way to justify the cost? Because you'll be able to play more games?

I think that's a pretty bad way to look at it. For one, you're increasing it's cost by demanding backwards compatibility. Second, you can play those games now, you won't gain anything in gameplay from playing it on another box. Second, cost is definitely a big deal, which is why we want adoption to be quick, so that it reaches everyone's personal price threshold quicker. No one says you need to buy at launch, but the rate of adoption and the price points do contribute greatly towards that goal. Let the early adopters see those benefits first, so you can get yours cheaper sooner. Early adopters want much more tangible benefits, rather than a gimmick selling point.